As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

At 1/8/2015 10:31:54 AM, kasmic wrote:As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

At 1/8/2015 10:31:54 AM, kasmic wrote:As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

These are some introductory questions. :)

Are you asking him for the Mormon position on these things? Or his personal views?

At 1/8/2015 10:31:54 AM, kasmic wrote:As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

These are some introductory questions. :)

Are you asking him for the Mormon position on these things? Or his personal views?

I'm asking for his views, there isn't an official position on these matters per se.

At 1/8/2015 10:31:54 AM, kasmic wrote:As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

These are some introductory questions. :)

Are you asking him for the Mormon position on these things? Or his personal views?

I'm asking for his views, there isn't an official position on these matters per se.

At 1/8/2015 10:31:54 AM, kasmic wrote:As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

These are some introductory questions. :)

Are you asking him for the Mormon position on these things? Or his personal views?

I'm asking for his views, there isn't an official position on these matters per se.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

The journal of Discourses for me personally is an interesting read, though not a source of doctrine. For example, I do not believe in much that Brigham Young said about race. There are many Mormons who claim to believe everything in the journal of discourses though it is not part of the LDS Cannon of scripture. The LDS church like any other religion has a fine line between "doctrine" and "culture." I reject racist teaching as part of the culture of the time.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

To be honest I do not have a position on the nature of Christs conception. This come down to current reasoning vs faith. In another forum I mention that sometimes I have a hard time connecting what I "know" to be true empirically and what I "believe" to be true spiritually. Those who have stated that Mary was physically impregnated by the Father may be trying to reconcile a miracle with their understanding of procreation.

Even if the source was one of the LDS apostles or prophets, which in this case it is... I take those types of statements with a grain of salt.

In summary I do not accept or reject that idea, I simply acknowledge that Mary miraculously became pregnant with the Christ Child. Speculation as to how such a miracle happened , is just that... speculation.

As it is written "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

While I do believe that the spirit can reveal spiritual things I think many try to profess knowledge of more than they "know."

At 1/8/2015 10:31:54 AM, kasmic wrote:As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

These are some introductory questions. :)

Are you asking him for the Mormon position on these things? Or his personal views?

I'm asking for his views, there isn't an official position on these matters per se.

At 1/8/2015 10:31:54 AM, kasmic wrote:As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

These are some introductory questions. :)

Are you asking him for the Mormon position on these things? Or his personal views?

I'm asking for his views, there isn't an official position on these matters per se.

At 1/8/2015 10:31:54 AM, kasmic wrote:As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

These are some introductory questions. :)

Are you asking him for the Mormon position on these things? Or his personal views?

I'm asking for his views, there isn't an official position on these matters per se.

The interpretation is that Christ is the begotten (physical) Son of God. How exactly that happened is ... unknown.

It's the how it happened part that is up for speculation within Mormon circles.

There is absolutely no way of knowing now is there? Unless that is, you ask the head of the church, who is believed a Prophet, and he can indeed ask for you. I would hazard to guess its simply not a terribly important part of the doctrine to figure it out. What is important theologically speaking, whether Mormon or some other faith, is to know that Jesus is the Son of God. Its the IS portion that is important.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

The journal of Discourses for me personally is an interesting read, though not a source of doctrine. For example, I do not believe in much that Brigham Young said about race. There are many Mormons who claim to believe everything in the journal of discourses though it is not part of the LDS Cannon of scripture. The LDS church like any other religion has a fine line between "doctrine" and "culture." I reject racist teaching as part of the culture of the time.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

To be honest I do not have a position on the nature of Christs conception. This come down to current reasoning vs faith. In another forum I mention that sometimes I have a hard time connecting what I "know" to be true empirically and what I "believe" to be true spiritually. Those who have stated that Mary was physically impregnated by the Father may be trying to reconcile a miracle with their understanding of procreation.

Even if the source was one of the LDS apostles or prophets, which in this case it is... I take those types of statements with a grain of salt.

In summary I do not accept or reject that idea, I simply acknowledge that Mary miraculously became pregnant with the Christ Child. Speculation as to how such a miracle happened , is just that... speculation.

As it is written "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

While I do believe that the spirit can reveal spiritual things I think many try to profess knowledge of more than they "know."

Why do you say Mary miraculously became pregnant with Jesus. If it wasn't Joseph it could be his neighbour.But if you believe John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Then you also believe there was no penetration by God. God spoke into Mary's vaginia . and she got pregnant with the word. Now that would be a miracle.Miracles also must have happened when God spoke to men. Floods, pestilence, death, destruction etc. etc. whatever God was speaking into men must have ticked him off. Don't you think?

At 1/8/2015 10:31:54 AM, kasmic wrote:As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

These are some introductory questions. :)

Are you asking him for the Mormon position on these things? Or his personal views?

I'm asking for his views, there isn't an official position on these matters per se.

The interpretation is that Christ is the begotten (physical) Son of God. How exactly that happened is ... unknown.

It's the how it happened part that is up for speculation within Mormon circles.

There is absolutely no way of knowing now is there? Unless that is, you ask the head of the church, who is believed a Prophet, and he can indeed ask for you. I would hazard to guess its simply not a terribly important part of the doctrine to figure it out. What is important theologically speaking, whether Mormon or some other faith, is to know that Jesus is the Son of God. Its the IS portion that is important.

Sorry, mentor of mine is LDS ;-)

It's a point of contention because previous prophets have weighed in on the issue and stated that it was basically through intercourse.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

The journal of Discourses for me personally is an interesting read, though not a source of doctrine. For example, I do not believe in much that Brigham Young said about race. There are many Mormons who claim to believe everything in the journal of discourses though it is not part of the LDS Cannon of scripture. The LDS church like any other religion has a fine line between "doctrine" and "culture." I reject racist teaching as part of the culture of the time.

Thanks for the response Kasmic!

Do you think Brigham Young thought he was just expressing his opinion, or do you think he was believing what he was saying was official doctrine?

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

To be honest I do not have a position on the nature of Christs conception. This come down to current reasoning vs faith. In another forum I mention that sometimes I have a hard time connecting what I "know" to be true empirically and what I "believe" to be true spiritually. Those who have stated that Mary was physically impregnated by the Father may be trying to reconcile a miracle with their understanding of procreation.

Even if the source was one of the LDS apostles or prophets, which in this case it is... I take those types of statements with a grain of salt.

When do you believe a prophet's teachings to be authoritative?

In summary I do not accept or reject that idea, I simply acknowledge that Mary miraculously became pregnant with the Christ Child. Speculation as to how such a miracle happened , is just that... speculation.

As it is written "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

While I do believe that the spirit can reveal spiritual things I think many try to profess knowledge of more than they "know."

At 1/8/2015 10:31:54 AM, kasmic wrote:As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

These are some introductory questions. :)

Are you asking him for the Mormon position on these things? Or his personal views?

I'm asking for his views, there isn't an official position on these matters per se.

The interpretation is that Christ is the begotten (physical) Son of God. How exactly that happened is ... unknown.

It's the how it happened part that is up for speculation within Mormon circles.

There is absolutely no way of knowing now is there? Unless that is, you ask the head of the church, who is believed a Prophet, and he can indeed ask for you. I would hazard to guess its simply not a terribly important part of the doctrine to figure it out. What is important theologically speaking, whether Mormon or some other faith, is to know that Jesus is the Son of God. Its the IS portion that is important.

Sorry, mentor of mine is LDS ;-)

It's a point of contention because previous prophets have weighed in on the issue and stated that it was basically through intercourse.

And yet Mary is a virgin, so it cannot be through intercourse can it?

Something basically like intercourse but not intercourse is ... incomprehensible. What matters, again, is the Jesus is the Son of God - not how exactly God did it.

How EXACTLY did God make the walls of Jericho fall? Who cares? The walls fell right when Israel needed a significant military advantage and its happened right when God told them it would.

How? That'd be the mystery of the Lord now wouldn't it?

Its why its basically skipped. Its not important. It's going to ultimately be an, "I don't know."

At 1/8/2015 10:31:54 AM, kasmic wrote:As a member of the LDS church I encounter several misconceptions about my faith. I invite anyone who has a question about "Mormons" to feel free to ask me. While I am not an LDS scholar I am well versed in LDS doctrine. I do ask that people be respectful with questions. This is not a "please bash my religion" invitation. Rather to promote understanding.

What's your position on the Journal of Discources? Does it have a place in your own personal faith, or do you reject the documents and contents therin? Such as Brigham Young's statements on race.

Also, what is your position on the nature of Christ's conception. Was Mary physically impregnated by the Father, as some have stated?

These are some introductory questions. :)

Are you asking him for the Mormon position on these things? Or his personal views?

I'm asking for his views, there isn't an official position on these matters per se.

The interpretation is that Christ is the begotten (physical) Son of God. How exactly that happened is ... unknown.

It's the how it happened part that is up for speculation within Mormon circles.

There is absolutely no way of knowing now is there? Unless that is, you ask the head of the church, who is believed a Prophet, and he can indeed ask for you. I would hazard to guess its simply not a terribly important part of the doctrine to figure it out. What is important theologically speaking, whether Mormon or some other faith, is to know that Jesus is the Son of God. Its the IS portion that is important.

Sorry, mentor of mine is LDS ;-)

It's a point of contention because previous prophets have weighed in on the issue and stated that it was basically through intercourse.

And yet Mary is a virgin, so it cannot be through intercourse can it?

Something basically like intercourse but not intercourse is ... incomprehensible. What matters, again, is the Jesus is the Son of God - not how exactly God did it.

How EXACTLY did God make the walls of Jericho fall? Who cares? The walls fell right when Israel needed a significant military advantage and its happened right when God told them it would.

How? That'd be the mystery of the Lord now wouldn't it?

Its why its basically skipped. Its not important. It's going to ultimately be an, "I don't know."

True, though I do know Mormons who hold to that position. It's a question that for me gauges the way a person views the writings and teachings of the earlier prophets.

Do you think Brigham Young thought he was just expressing his opinion, or do you think he was believing what he was saying was official doctrine?

I believe that Brigham Young believed he was teaching doctrine. lol! You must have had these conversations before.

When do you believe a prophet's teachings to be authoritative?

So in the LDS faith there is modern revelation. Both personal and thru prophets. I accept as "doctrine" The Standard works being the Bible. The Book of Mormon. The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

I believe a prophet's teaching to be generally authoritative. I believe that obedience is the first law of heaven. As LDS doctrine holds that Christ was the only perfect being it is reasonable to believe in a prophet as being ordained yet imperfect.

Do you think Brigham Young thought he was just expressing his opinion, or do you think he was believing what he was saying was official doctrine?

I believe that Brigham Young believed he was teaching doctrine. lol! You must have had these conversations before.

I have. :)

I'm a former Mormon. Though I am not anti-Mormon by any stretch.

When do you believe a prophet's teachings to be authoritative?

So in the LDS faith there is modern revelation. Both personal and thru prophets. I accept as "doctrine" The Standard works being the Bible. The Book of Mormon. The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

I believe a prophet's teaching to be generally authoritative. I believe that obedience is the first law of heaven. As LDS doctrine holds that Christ was the only perfect being it is reasonable to believe in a prophet as being ordained yet imperfect.

Is the determination on whether or not a prophet's teachings are doctrine based upon later confirmation or is it somewhat subject to the individual on whether they accept it.

True, though I do know Mormons who hold to that position. It's a question that for me gauges the way a person views the writings and teachings of the earlier prophets.

I think it kinda misses the point, and its not something unique to the LDS Church. Doctrine provides, in any organization, a starting off point for understanding. The question you ask is legitimate, but, being essentially unknown and unknowable, its can quickly become the proverbial argument to absurdity. You never get anywhere and get locked into doctrinal feuds that can be tremendously destructive.

The message that matters is that Christ is the Son of God, and he came to bring a message and guidance. Be charitable, merciful, love one another, seek what is good, etc. The message is not about the physicalities of 'how' he came here, but why.

You miss a massive portion of that 'message' if you get bogged down in minutia, and one of the biggest things you wind up missing is the spirit of Christ.

When I first turned away from atheism, my temptation was to stay in the comfort zone of theology. The priest who converted me was pretty specific, and with hind sight, absolutely correct: Jesus is not just the doctrine, its not about the intellect - its about the relationship with Christ.

True, though I do know Mormons who hold to that position. It's a question that for me gauges the way a person views the writings and teachings of the earlier prophets.

I think it kinda misses the point, and its not something unique to the LDS Church. Doctrine provides, in any organization, a starting off point for understanding. The question you ask is legitimate, but, being essentially unknown and unknowable, its can quickly become the proverbial argument to absurdity. You never get anywhere and get locked into doctrinal feuds that can be tremendously destructive.

The message that matters is that Christ is the Son of God, and he came to bring a message and guidance. Be charitable, merciful, love one another, seek what is good, etc. The message is not about the physicalities of 'how' he came here, but why.

You miss a massive portion of that 'message' if you get bogged down in minutia, and one of the biggest things you wind up missing is the spirit of Christ.

When I first turned away from atheism, my temptation was to stay in the comfort zone of theology. The priest who converted me was pretty specific, and with hind sight, absolutely correct: Jesus is not just the doctrine, its not about the intellect - its about the relationship with Christ.

If that makes sense?

I guess that is why your question caught my eye ;-)

I understand what the central message of Mormonism is, hence I don't have questions about it. :)

Forgive me if these questions seem inane or silly but I would like to know from a self-confessed member of the Church of Latter Day Saints instead of youtube video. Is it part of your doctrine that all humans originated on a planet called Kolob, came to earth with Jesus and Satan, that Jesus and Satan were brothers, and that you will have your own planet when you pass away here, if you are righteous and uphold God's laws?

Is the determination on whether or not a prophet's teachings are doctrine based upon later confirmation or is it somewhat subject to the individual on whether they accept it.

Just trying to get a thumb on what you see as the criteria.

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." Doctrine and Covenants 68:3-4

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16

Anything spoken by the spirit = scripture.All scripture is profitable for = doctrine

The confirmation of the spirit dictates what is or is not doctrine. You might say this is a cop-out because many people claim to "feel" the spirit confirm truth to all kinds of things. However, I believe that is the answer. What the Holy Spirit confirms is doctrine.

Is the determination on whether or not a prophet's teachings are doctrine based upon later confirmation or is it somewhat subject to the individual on whether they accept it.

Just trying to get a thumb on what you see as the criteria.

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." Doctrine and Covenants 68:3-4

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16

Anything spoken by the spirit = scripture.All scripture is profitable for = doctrine

The confirmation of the spirit dictates what is or is not doctrine. You might say this is a cop-out because many people claim to "feel" the spirit confirm truth to all kinds of things. However, I believe that is the answer. What the Holy Spirit confirms is doctrine.

This is interesting thanks! Do you think this in some ways almost makes doctrine subjectively verified? That one can say, "this doesn't sit well with what the Spirit is telling me," and then disobey the prophet?

At 1/8/2015 11:41:03 AM, dhardage wrote:Forgive me if these questions seem inane or silly but I would like to know from a self-confessed member of the Church of Latter Day Saints instead of youtube video. Is it part of your doctrine that all humans originated on a planet called Kolob, came to earth with Jesus and Satan, that Jesus and Satan were brothers, and that you will have your own planet when you pass away here, if you are righteous and uphold God's laws?

Aw... I wondered when Kolob would come up. lol!

No it is not LDS doctrine that all humans originated on a planet called Kolob. Kolob is mentioned in our scripture as the planet that is closest to where God lives. No where is mentioned who or what or if anything lives there.

Yes, the LDS doctrine teaches that Jesus and Satan are brothers... we (including Jesus, and Satan) are Children of God. So you would also be sibling to Jesus and Satan.

Having your own planet is kinda sensationalized. LDS doctrine teaches that As Man is God once was, as God is man may become. So thru Christ we can become like God. Or in other words become God's. Thus, like God create worlds without number.

True, though I do know Mormons who hold to that position. It's a question that for me gauges the way a person views the writings and teachings of the earlier prophets.

I think it kinda misses the point, and its not something unique to the LDS Church. Doctrine provides, in any organization, a starting off point for understanding. The question you ask is legitimate, but, being essentially unknown and unknowable, its can quickly become the proverbial argument to absurdity. You never get anywhere and get locked into doctrinal feuds that can be tremendously destructive.

The message that matters is that Christ is the Son of God, and he came to bring a message and guidance. Be charitable, merciful, love one another, seek what is good, etc. The message is not about the physicalities of 'how' he came here, but why.

You miss a massive portion of that 'message' if you get bogged down in minutia, and one of the biggest things you wind up missing is the spirit of Christ.

When I first turned away from atheism, my temptation was to stay in the comfort zone of theology. The priest who converted me was pretty specific, and with hind sight, absolutely correct: Jesus is not just the doctrine, its not about the intellect - its about the relationship with Christ.

If that makes sense?

I guess that is why your question caught my eye ;-)

I understand what the central message of Mormonism is, hence I don't have questions about it. :)

I also find the minutia interesting. :)

Where do you stand on Mormonism, you said your mentor was.

I defend all valid religions ;-)

As far as Mormons go? As a community, I think they are pretty amazing. One of the things I like about the church is the accountability or 'Temple Recommend'. I wish more churches adopted something like that - a set of standards that are accountable.

To contrast, adultery in the Mormon church gets you ... consequences, and the higher up you are in the hierarchy, the more severe the consequences. Adultery, as a military guy I have seen it and how destructive it is, and Biblically, its bad - Mormons are 'ruthless' about discipline on that one.

I contrast that with my Father's Church, who had an elder commit adultery and then tried to use his privileged position to block the consequences. He was eventually removed, but the church goers had to pretty much rebel to make it happen. Not pretty.

The contrast s noticeable.

The Prophets are interesting, and some their explanations are really ... quite good. I agree with Kasmic, that however inspired, these are Prophets not Christ - much the same way reading the 'other' Prophet Mohammed brings forth some real gems, but with the caveat that he was, in the end, a human instrument of God.

I have, over the years acquired a taste for the practical i religions. Mormons offer many practical applications, and having been invited and accepted meetings where the church leaders speak, I have been particularly impressed by the often practical messages that come from men that are imbued with great power ... be a good father, husband, friend (Or wife, mother, friend).

Love the Mormons or hate them, their leaders deliver really extraordinary messages of practicality through Christ.

At 1/8/2015 11:41:03 AM, dhardage wrote:Forgive me if these questions seem inane or silly but I would like to know from a self-confessed member of the Church of Latter Day Saints instead of youtube video. Is it part of your doctrine that all humans originated on a planet called Kolob, came to earth with Jesus and Satan, that Jesus and Satan were brothers, and that you will have your own planet when you pass away here, if you are righteous and uphold God's laws?

Aw... I wondered when Kolob would come up. lol!

No it is not LDS doctrine that all humans originated on a planet called Kolob. Kolob is mentioned in our scripture as the planet that is closest to where God lives. No where is mentioned who or what or if anything lives there.

Yes, the LDS doctrine teaches that Jesus and Satan are brothers... we (including Jesus, and Satan) are Children of God. So you would also be sibling to Jesus and Satan.

Having your own planet is kinda sensationalized. LDS doctrine teaches that As Man is God once was, as God is man may become. So thru Christ we can become like God. Or in other words become God's. Thus, like God create worlds without number.

Thank you. I have only seen the somewhat cartoonish depictions of your doctrine and am glad to hear it from a more reliable source.

This is interesting thanks! Do you think this in some ways almost makes doctrine subjectively verified? That one can say, "this doesn't sit well with what the Spirit is telling me," and then disobey the prophet?

Not subjectively verified. Just subjectively acknowledged... if that makes any sense. So one may say "this doesn't sit well with what the Spirit is telling me," However, between that person and God will be know if that is indeed the case.